Just as the NEC (in the US, anyway) is the ultimate authority on how electrical systems can and will be set up, individual jurisdictions can add to the regulations for safety sake because of local conditions--but they can NOT annul any of the conditions that the NEC has laid out as basic regulations!

Is that so? I thought that the NEC is only a recommended code that can be adopted in part or in whole or not at all by the local jurisdiction. Most do adopt it as part of their local regulations (for the sake of convenience) but it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce it. The National Fire Protection Association (who published the NEC) has no authority to enforce anything.

...If the FCC wishes to allow encryption within the amateur service, it most certainly has the sovereign power do so as long as this doesn't have implications that spill over its borders with other nations. Only when the spillover is an issue across borders does a nation agree to partially give up its sovereignty in exchange for other nations' willingness to do the same for a common benefit....

And I submit that this (encryption) is potentially a big problem, and that alone should stop this proposal in its tracks. Did you ever hear the joke about the fly in a restaurant customers soup? He started to complain--and the waiter shushed him, saying "Not so loud, the others will want one too!"

OK, say the US does allow encryption. Other countries will either follow suit, leave things as they are--or complain mightily that the US is breaking the ITU regulations! In any event, the ITU regulations are now dirt underfoot--and other countries will probably start violating parts of those regulations that other countries will still want enforced. What good are the international regulations then?

Is that so? I thought that the NEC is only a recommended code that can be adopted in part or in whole or not at all by the local jurisdiction. Most do adopt it as part of their local regulations (for the sake of convenience) but it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce it. The National Fire Protection Association (who published the NEC) has no authority to enforce anything.

No, the NFPA doesn't enforce it, the government does. I suggest you look at the code and the associated documentation again. It spells out enforcement and not undercutting its minimum regulations. Don't believe everything you may read in wikipedia.

OK, say the US does allow encryption. Other countries will either follow suit, leave things as they are--or complain mightily that the US is breaking the ITU regulations!

I will try once again to make it clear to you how international law (treaties) and the ITU Agreement works:

If one countries actions or regulations don't affect another's, there is no legal basis in which the other country can file a legitimate complaint.

It's much like you (as an individual) trying to bring a case before the U.S. Supreme Court - no matter how important or earth-shattering the arguments, the Court won't hear it unless you can show that you - personally - were damaged by the law in question.

If the court doesn't buy your argument that you were significantly (and usually directly) damaged in some way by the other party's actions, you are not within that court's jurisdiction. This principle applies to nations bringing complaints to an organization such as the ITU. The ITU simply has no jurisdiction over the internal affairs of any nation!

Quote

In any event, the ITU regulations are now dirt underfoot--and other countries will probably start violating parts of those regulations that other countries will still want enforced. What good are the international regulations then?

No, no, NO. Best leave well enough alone.

The purpose of international agreements is mutual benefit. There is no other reason (other than sheer coercion) for a nation to sign such an agreement! Nations simply do not give up their sovereign power without assurance that it will receive something in return!

If the United States wants other nations to do its bidding, you won't find such "agreements" being willingly signed onto by other countries! Such an "agreement" is more likely to be referred to as a "surrender document."

Just a tip, Franz, don't be so condescending. And don't try to 'make it clear' when you're cloudy on an issue yourself. Your analogy of a case before the Supreme Court doesn't hold water since that court deals with in-country issues and can enforce their decisions, while the World Court deals with disagreement between nations and cannot easily enforce anything except with recommended sanctions against the offending nations.

Oh, and just where did you get the idea that the ITU has jurisdiction over anyone? That was never said. What WAS said is that the signatory countries have an obligation to follow those ITU rules, since they gave their tacit agreement to do so when they signed. 73.

Just as the NEC (in the US, anyway) is the ultimate authority on how electrical systems can and will be set up, individual jurisdictions can add to the regulations for safety sake because of local conditions--but they can NOT annul any of the conditions that the NEC has laid out as basic regulations!

Is that so? I thought that the NEC is only a recommended code that can be adopted in part or in whole or not at all by the local jurisdiction. Most do adopt it as part of their local regulations (for the sake of convenience) but it is up to the local jurisdiction to enforce it. The National Fire Protection Association (who published the NEC) has no authority to enforce anything.

You are correct. In many cases, current editions of the NEC are not adopted by municipalities. CA, for example, has its own set of electrical safety orders which take precidence over clearance and working distance requirements of the NEC. And, those are codified as state law.

....It also seems to me that while it is certainly true that such things as "trunked" repeater systems and cell phones will be the first to go down in an emergency, real "First Responders" have also now started to realize that fact and are taking steps to build their own emergency "backup" communications systems into their emergency planning.

This includes keeping a supply of those old, analog VHF or UHF hand-helds and repeater systems charged and ready to go in such situations. What's more, such in-house backup usually costs them next to nothing to maintain. That's because, very often their old communications infrastructure has remained in place when they made the move to a new trunked and/or encrypted system.

I share your disdain for trunked-junk, if you recall some of my earlier rants on the subject. The New Orleans system failure during Hurricane Katrina probably had the greatest impact so far with very real adverse consequences in loss of life, injuries and property loss.

Here’s but the latest trunked-junk failure. Pretty embarassing for the City of Detroit: On July 5, 2013, the entire Detroit, Michigan police department trunked radio system collapsed.

“Michigan State Police stepped in to allow Detroit's emergency system to use the state's communication system. This backup was used for several days while crews worked to restore the Detroit system. Detroit Police Spokeswoman Sergeant Eren Stephens said that during the initial down time there had been some 60 priority one and more than 170 non-emergency calls that had backed up because of the issue.” Amateur Radio Newsline No. 1874, July 12, 2013

Personally, I’m sick and tired of the Amateur Service being offered as a band-aid for poor choices made by local and state governments. And, this encryption request is just one of likely many additions to morph things into an auxiliary for agencies having the stupidity to replace conventional repeater systems with failure-prone, unreliable trunked junk.

I know of one that acknowledged their “mistake.” That was the Dallas, TX police department. They went from a UHF conventional repeater system to a trunked system and soon went back to the conventional system. This was several years ago. They were lucky. Their problems were mostly poor coverage, not a total loss of the system via single point failure. The trunked system was given to the Dallas Animal Control to chase stray dogs wth.

No CJS the OP was about encryption,which I don't agree with, you hijacked this forum to promote your views on global harmony, some of us simply come here to learn from those with more experience to better serve our communities.

Hijacked? Wrong! The 'global harmony' thing was part of the discussion about how other countries may see our (the USA) allowing encryption. You know, hams also use HF for emergency communications--and unless specified (as some commenters have done) that encryption be limited to certain bands, allowing encryption may just open a pandora's box of problems.

I'm not sure that a whacker isn't better than a wanker, and you sure qualify as that, you need to remember that this is a nation based on Constitutional law, not international law , no international court means anything on US soil. The Constitution clearly states that the government and it's institutions only exist with the permission of the people, You denegrade when you have the ability to improve. If your not willing to make the FCC better, please move a few miles North.KF5AFN

.......it's institutions only exist with the permission of the people, You denegrade when you have the ability to improve. If your not willing to make the FCC better, please move a few miles North.

Interesting spiel. How many Petitions, Comments, Replies, Objections or Complaints have you filed before the Commission? Or before Congressional Committees, etc? Attack or support the issue or its perspective, not people.

Copyright 2000-2016 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement